I know conventional wisdom is to keep a guy like Matthews on the right side of the defense, but Perry looked pretty good there. I remember the season they played Matthews on the left, and he was quite disruptive in the face of the QB, along with generally being a huge mismatch to block vs every single RT in the league.

Agree. Matthews lined up at LOLB makes the line call and shift protection that way, if he does not rush, should free up others for 1 v 1 matchups. Perry looked like a different rusher from the ROLB spot. Seemed to be able to bend and get better leverage on the OT.

Disagree for simple reason. Some of Clay's current injury issues started because we played hm at LOLB when he wasn't built to take the beating over there.

I'm pretty sure Clay had hamstring problems from day 1 his rookie year. He missed time during the first training camp because of it and that was a big reason why he was a back up/sub for poppinga for 4 games to start the season.

Fifth in the league in yards per game is something none of us expected.

As nice as that is, 5.3 ypc, 2nd in the league might just be even harder to conceive.

Cobb for sure helped that out a lot yesterday with his little scamper...

What I can't figure out is Franklin. I know he didn't get the chances yesterday and has some security issues, but he looked so good against Cincy, is there not a better way we could use him?? Admittedly I don't have 1/4 of the football knowledge of some of you posters here, so teach me! Are they just trying to get Lacy going? Is it his size or ball security? Was Cincy a fluke game for him? Or do we not know how to use 2 good running backs??_________________

* Disappointed in the Packers ability to win close games yesterday. I wish Rodgers was clutch, his inability to score in a game winning drive was sickening.
* Special teams... are you kidding me? We've long established we aren't going anywhere but backwards on punt returns, so we might as well just go for the punt block and fair catch it every time... although I'm not confident that wouldn't end up in a roughing the kicker penalty.
* Divisional games are usually weird. Remember in 2010 when the Packers only scored 3 vs the Lions?
* The defense is pretty good this year. I've seen a bunch of people referencing points per game and slamming the defense for these high marks after 3 whole games. Well, somehow the defense gets the blame for the Franklin fumble return, as well as the Ross fumble inside the 5 in the 1st game. Take those two away and it's 24.5 pts per game going into this game and 20.75 after... and considering the garbage time TD, the numbers go even lower. So l hope all these idiots running around with this '29.3' number are ready to admit the defense is at worst average.
* The Jones TD... how was that overturned? That's two weeks in a row where the refs blew a call where there's simply not enough evidence to overturn it. Jones clearly had his hand on the ball when his back toe was on the ground. The only thing that wasn't clear was when possession of the ball started. Was it after his toe left the ground? It wasn't clear, therefore, it was a bad ruling. The ref did a horrible job of explaining his reasoning, and I honestly think the moron didn't look at the first toe being down, he just looked at that last foot step out of bounds. And the announcer not knowing you had to get two feet in? What was with that?
* AJ Hawk - has he not got a smaller helmet after his haircut? As injury prone as the Packers are, that guy needs to buckle in better.

The confusion re: Jones' td is that it appeared that he had. Foot down when he caught the ball. He then got another foot down in the endzone. The third foot was indeed placed out of bounds. It did look, though, that he had a foot down when catching the ball.

This is what confused me. I thought James caught it before he crossed the goal line.

My thoughts are they concluded he hadn't secured the ball before he got to the end zone, and subsequently the second foot caught the out of bounds line....Hence, not a legitimate reception.....

But, in fairness I thought all he needed to do was break the plane and it would be a score....Surprise, you have to be in bounds in the end zone....

The confusion re: Jones' td is that it appeared that he had. Foot down when he caught the ball. He then got another foot down in the endzone. The third foot was indeed placed out of bounds. It did look, though, that he had a foot down when catching the ball.

This is what confused me. I thought James caught it before he crossed the goal line.

My thoughts are they concluded he hadn't secured the ball before he got to the end zone, and subsequently the second foot caught the out of bounds line....Hence, not a legitimate reception.....

But, in fairness I thought all he needed to do was break the plane and it would be a score....Surprise, you have to be in bounds in the end zone....

But when he first touched the ball his right toe was on the ground with his heel coming up, and then his second step with his left foot was clearly in bounds. Then his next step (his right foot again) landed on the line. We all know this foot was out of bounds. That's not the point. This whole plane stuff is also irrelevant. He had two feet down because when the ball first arrived his right toe was still touching the turf, and you couldn't determine from the replay that he DIDNT have possession at that point. I don't understand why this is so difficult.

Last edited by valpoPackers on Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:21 pm; edited 2 times in total

But when he first touched the ball his right toe was on the ground with his heel coming up, and then his second step with his left foot was clearly in bounds. Then his next step (his right foot again) landed on the line. We all know this foot was out of bounds. That's not the point. This whole plane stuff is also irrelevant. He had two feet down because when the ball first arrived his right toe was still touching the turf, and you couldn't determine from the replay that he DIDNT have possession at that point. I don't understand why this is so difficult.

You are talking about when he first touched the ball, but not necessarily when he established control.....

I guess you have complete incompetance than with those officiating the game, and those who reviewed the play.....Not to mention, the retired referee whom the commentators inquired about the play, who also said they got the right call....

None of that matters since the call on the field was touchdown. It's very debatable that he had control already when that toe was still on the ground. When your debating control, the call on the field should almost always win unless it's blatantly obvious he didn't have it. It wasn't even close to obvious._________________

None of that matters since the call on the field was touchdown. It's very debatable that he had control already when that toe was still on the ground. When your debating control, the call on the field should almost always win unless it's blatantly obvious he didn't have it. It wasn't even close to obvious.

I think that line of thought only refers to non scoring plays.....When it does come to a scoring play, there cannot be any areas of question.....Yes, the refs called a touchdown and the call was over turned to an incomplete pass.....Imperfect system, but I guess it's intent is to be fair.....Had the lost four point come back and affected the outcome of the game, far more people (including myself) would've been terribly upset....

None of that matters since the call on the field was touchdown. It's very debatable that he had control already when that toe was still on the ground. When your debating control, the call on the field should almost always win unless it's blatantly obvious he didn't have it. It wasn't even close to obvious.

I think that line of thought only refers to non scoring plays.....When it does come to a scoring play, there cannot be any areas of question.....Yes, the refs called a touchdown and the call was over turned to an incomplete pass.....Imperfect system, but I guess it's intent is to be fair.....Had the lost four point come back and affected the outcome of the game, far more people (including myself) would've been terribly upset....

Common sense says you are right about a difference between non scoring/scoring plays. If there's some doubt the score probably shouldn't count... but that's not at all what the rulebook says. It says the call on the field is the reference point. If you can't make a clear determination from that, the call stands.

None of that matters since the call on the field was touchdown. It's very debatable that he had control already when that toe was still on the ground. When your debating control, the call on the field should almost always win unless it's blatantly obvious he didn't have it. It wasn't even close to obvious.

I think that line of thought only refers to non scoring plays.....When it does come to a scoring play, there cannot be any areas of question.....Yes, the refs called a touchdown and the call was over turned to an incomplete pass.....Imperfect system, but I guess it's intent is to be fair.....Had the lost four point come back and affected the outcome of the game, far more people (including myself) would've been terribly upset....

Reviews by Referee. All Replay Reviews will be conducted by the Referee on a field-level monitor after consultation with the covering official(s), prior to review. A decision will be reversed only when the Referee has indisputable visual evidence available to him that warrants the change.

That's the whole point. It was unclear where possession started, and due to the fact it was in his hands while his toe was on the ground means that he COULD have had possession at that point. I would feel better if the referee had said something like "The runners right toe had left the ground before gaining possession, therefore it was an incomplete pass" but instead he just said the second foot stepped out of bounds... that tells me he didn't even look at that first foot coming down. That wouldn't be all that surprising. Mike Pereira did talk about that first toe being on the ground still, but I disagree that it was indisputable that he DIDNT have possession. He was the VP of Officiating so he has a handle on how the refs usually rule, but he's also "wrong" a bunch and will give an opinion against what the refs on the field ruled.

I think we're ignoring the incredible transition we're witnessing. For the last four years, we've been a pass-dominant team with an insatiable desire to beat teams athletically. Our downfall has been chewing up clock, wearing opposing teams down, and setting up an effective play action.

What we're doing now is transitioning, finding our identity and establishing a run game that has long been dormant. Fifth in the league in yards per game is something none of us expected. To have this success this early on in the campaign is admirable and leaves me confident this offense will prosper by season's end. I could not care less if we only scored 22 points. What we did throughout the game on offense was impressive. We took what we wanted in both facets of the game, ground and air, and took another step closer to finding an identity that was inevitably lost when we took Eddie Lacy. That's not a bad thing either. One team can't survive for too long with the same focus, and that was evident in the last two years.

Part of the season is acclimating to the roster's strengths and weaknesses. That's why the outburst post-Cincinnati was so disgusting. This is the NFL, where each team is loaded with studs (save Jacksonville), and wins are hard as hell to come by. The first goal is to reach the playoffs. And 10 wins is usually that benchmark. Give McCarthy credit in balancing a run game with an explosive passing attack. Give Capers credit for nearly shutting out the Lions and destroying the Redskins, two offenses that have been praised throughout the last year for being explosive and transcending. And if you want to point to the 49ers or Bengals collapses as indictments of our lack of talent or coaching ability, consider the Cowboys and Broncos game last night. 51-48? Where was the defense? This is the new NFL that's tailored for the casual fan seeking explosive attacks and lots of points. It's a new era. Our defense has been a success, given the amount of adjustment needed without Burnett and Hayward.

I like the way this team looks. The defense can make stops when its back is up against the wall and the pass rush has been a positive, too. Offensively? Things can only get better. And that's scary to think of.

Great post. I agree: I think Mac and our offense are still trying to find their center -- so to speak -- with newfound success at running the football. I'll be more worried about slow offense and low scoring if it persists. This early in the season, though, is not the time to fret._________________"It's not even close" is the most overused phrase on this message board and it's not even close (OHOHOHOHO)!!

I think we're ignoring the incredible transition we're witnessing. For the last four years, we've been a pass-dominant team with an insatiable desire to beat teams athletically. Our downfall has been chewing up clock, wearing opposing teams down, and setting up an effective play action.

What we're doing now is transitioning, finding our identity and establishing a run game that has long been dormant. Fifth in the league in yards per game is something none of us expected. To have this success this early on in the campaign is admirable and leaves me confident this offense will prosper by season's end. I could not care less if we only scored 22 points. What we did throughout the game on offense was impressive. We took what we wanted in both facets of the game, ground and air, and took another step closer to finding an identity that was inevitably lost when we took Eddie Lacy. That's not a bad thing either. One team can't survive for too long with the same focus, and that was evident in the last two years.

Part of the season is acclimating to the roster's strengths and weaknesses. That's why the outburst post-Cincinnati was so disgusting. This is the NFL, where each team is loaded with studs (save Jacksonville), and wins are hard as hell to come by. The first goal is to reach the playoffs. And 10 wins is usually that benchmark. Give McCarthy credit in balancing a run game with an explosive passing attack. Give Capers credit for nearly shutting out the Lions and destroying the Redskins, two offenses that have been praised throughout the last year for being explosive and transcending. And if you want to point to the 49ers or Bengals collapses as indictments of our lack of talent or coaching ability, consider the Cowboys and Broncos game last night. 51-48? Where was the defense? This is the new NFL that's tailored for the casual fan seeking explosive attacks and lots of points. It's a new era. Our defense has been a success, given the amount of adjustment needed without Burnett and Hayward.

I like the way this team looks. The defense can make stops when its back is up against the wall and the pass rush has been a positive, too. Offensively? Things can only get better. And that's scary to think of.

Great post. I agree: I think Mac and our offense are still trying to find their center -- so to speak -- with newfound success at running the football. I'll be more worried about slow offense and low scoring if it persists. This early in the season, though, is not the time to fret.